Andrew Love: The A406 north circular road passes right through the middle of my constituency and 60,000 vehicles go in each direction every day, causing enormous noise and air pollution. Will my hon. Friend make it a priority to speak to the Mayor about air quality in particular? It is deteriorating daily and something needs to be done.

Peter Ainsworth: Changing the subject, I am sure that the whole House will agree that it was a great day for wildlife conservation when, in 1989, the international community banned the trade in ivory. I am sure that most of us would also agree that it was a regrettable day when, in 1997, Robert Mugabe led a successful challenge to that ban. Are the Government proud that on Tuesday, acting on behalf of the EU, an official from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs voted to allow China to import ivory? Surely the best way to deal with the continuing illegal trade in ivory is to choke off demand, not stoke it in that way?

Theresa May: I think that the Leader of the House has lost the plot as well as the page. I echo the comments that she made, however, and as this is the last business questions before the recess, Mr. Speaker, I wish you, all right hon. And hon. Members, all staff of this House and Members' staff a happy summer recess.
	The Prime Minister is expected to make an oral statement to this House on Tuesday on Iraq or other matters relating to the middle east. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm today that the Prime Minister will be making such an oral statement on Tuesday?
	Last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether the Chancellor would make a statement to the House when the report on Equitable Life was published. Her response was:
	"Let us see what it says and then we can consider how to deal with it."—[ Official Report, 10 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1567.]
	That report is published today. It reveals serious regulatory failure and calls for compensation for policyholders. The Chancellor has made a written statement today, but given that Members of all parties have constituents affected by this failure, and will want to question him on it, will the Leader of the House guarantee that the Chancellor will make a oral statement to the House on the Government's response to the ombudsman's report on Equitable Life when the House returns?
	Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised the issue of the Modernisation Committee's report on regional accountability. The report was passed on the casting vote of the Chairman, the right hon. and learned Lady, who is a member of the Government. The report endorses her Government's proposals, as set out in the Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain". The Committee's recent report on debating departmental objectives also arose from the Government's Green Paper, as did the Committee's current inquiry on the recall and dissolution of Parliament. Select Committees of this House do not exist to execute Government policy, so may we have a debate on the future role of the Modernisation Committee?
	Talking of that Committee, the Leader of the House today issued an illuminating single-paragraph written statement, saying that she will publish the Government's response to the Committee's report on regional accountability on Monday. As this is the last business questions before the recess, and the last real opportunity for the Leader of the House to take questions on future business, will she tell us when she intends to table the Standing Orders on regional Select Committees?
	When the right hon. and learned Lady announced her proposals on the Equality Bill on 26 June, she said:
	"Next month I will publish a further paper setting out our proposals in greater detail".—[ Official Report, 26 June 2008; Vol. 478, c. 501.]
	As the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee today that that paper will be published before the recess?
	On a similar theme, on 12 June, when asked about the procedure for choosing topical debates, the Leader of the House said:
	"we are reviewing the operation of topical debates...I shall report to the House before the summer recess."—[ Official Report, 12 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 462.]
	Again, as the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee today that that report will be published before the recess?
	In her written statement yesterday on Members' allowances, the Leader of the House said that she had had
	"a number of positive discussions...with many hon. Members."—[ Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 31WS.]
	Will she now list those Members, and, as the House rises on Tuesday, will she guarantee that her consultation document on Members' allowances will be circulated to Members before the recess?
	Those questions can all be answered by the right hon. and learned Lady today. They are not matters on which she can pass the buck to other members of the Cabinet. They are important matters for this House and our constituents. Perhaps she should stop dreaming about becoming leader of the country, and start acting as the leader of this House.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for prior sight of it. Conservatives welcome any measures to help our armed forces and their families, and indeed many of the proposals announced today echo proposals that we have made over the past year. Although it may have taken a long time for the Government to introduce this package of measures, if this is the beginning of a genuinely constructive and bipartisan approach to the welfare of our armed forces, their families and service veterans, the whole country will welcome it.
	No other group in our society is asked to make the sort of sacrifices that our armed forces make on our behalf. Those on both sides of the House who have visited our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan know the hardships that they face. Those who have talked to service families about how they feel when they hear that another soldier has been killed or injured but they have not yet learned the name of the person involved marvel at their courage. Those who have visited young soldiers in Selly Oak or Headley Court have been humbled by the soldiers' lack of self pity in the face of great adversity.
	May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a number of points in his statement, starting with the compensation issue? We welcome the doubling of the maximum award for the most seriously injured, but he will be aware that the points system determines eligibility for the most serious injury payment and that it has attracted much criticism. That issue has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House Does he believe that the system is sufficiently holistic in its approach? What plans are there for a review of it, and when will that take place?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State said, "Everyone with an award for injury under the compensation scheme will benefit". Will he clarify that? Does he mean that there will be an automatic uprating of all awards made since 2005, and if so, when will such changes be made? What of those injured in Iraq or Afghanistan before 2005? What changes will be made to bring their treatment and compensation into line with the changes announced today for those injured after 2005? The public will find it hard to accept an arbitrary date for discrimination in treatment. May I remind the House that between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2005, 33 UK military personnel were categorised as very seriously injured and 78 were categorised as seriously injured, and that in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005, six were categorised as very seriously injured and four as seriously injured? What will happen to them?
	Can the Secretary of State also tell us how many claims have been made by former service personnel against the MOD in the civil courts, how many such claims are outstanding and what the estimated liability is? What assessment has he made of the likely impact of today's statement on those claims? Finally, will more money be made available from the Treasury for the changes that he has announced today, and if so, how much? We do not want the MOD to be forced to cut other parts of an already overstretched budget.
	We welcome other moves that have been announced, but we will want to examine the practicalities. For example, providing good mental health services to veterans requires better integration between defence medicine and the NHS, and although the aim of providing better access to NHS dentistry for service families is desirable, it will not be helped by the fact that the number of NHS dentists declined by a further 500 in 2007.
	We would also like to re-examine the issue of the educational status of those leaving the forces, which the Secretary of State mentioned. Many of those who have taken an interest in this issue point out that the underskilling of those who leave the services early is often a greater problem than the one in respect of those leaving after six years. I hope that the Government will re-examine how such people might also be helped.
	Finally, may I thank all in the media, in charities and among the general public who have campaigned so tirelessly for the better treatment of our service personnel and their families, and our veterans? Specifically, may I thank Freddie Forsyth and his team, which includes Simon Weston, for the work that they have done for the commission that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on service welfare? I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge what has been a great act of public service on their part.
	How we deal with our armed forces is symptomatic of the values of our society. Ultimately, we will have to deal with the overstretch that contributes to many of the problems that those in our armed forces and their families face, but today there has been a welcome acknowledgement of how much needs to be done.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend, who is a member of the Defence Committee, knows that we have been working in this area; in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), has been working in this area with some vigour. Apart from the mental health pilots, which were extremely successful and which we are now about to roll out across the country, one of the things that we put in place early was the tracking system to enable us to keep in contact with our people, recognising that the symptoms of mental health problems sometimes have a late onset. So my hon. Friend can be reassured that we are developing that system and we have confidence that we shall be able to keep in touch with our people. Another of the innovations of our approach to mental health is that we now deploy, with our troops mental health support staff, both psychiatrists and psychologists to enable us to deal with these issues in the circumstances where early symptoms sometimes arise.

Jacqui Smith: There is an important responsibility on the new, stronger police authorities, which, incidentally, will be inspected from next year, to ensure that hold to account and play a role in the performance review of chief officers in the way my hon. Friend outlines.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend will know that we made it clear in our response that where information should be provided to the Committee, all Departments have a responsibility to make sure that it is provided in a timely way. There have been only a small number of occasions—this relates to the second recommendation that he identified—on which the decision has been taken not to make certain information available to the Committee, and he refers to one of those.
	I do not propose to dwell at length on the recommendations, not least because, as we have heard, the Government have already published their response. Hon. Members will have seen that the Government welcome and widely endorse the Committee's views. Where the need for further action has been identified, this has been taken forward. The ISC notes, for example, that the increased funding for the agencies over the next three years is commensurate with the increased threats that the UK faces and the requirements of the agencies to counter them.
	However, the Committee also expresses concern that aspects of key intelligence and security work are suffering as a consequence of the focus on counter-terrorism priorities. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that both the Government and the agencies remain very focused on the range of threats to the UK. Although the increase in agency funding was driven largely by the need to respond to the terrorist threat, we continue to resource capabilities to counter other threats effectively. Moreover, capabilities developed to counter terrorism can often be deployed against other targets, and technological advances have led to newer, smarter and more flexible ways of working, which have enhanced our ability to respond to respond to these or any other sudden, unexpected threats.

Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that it was to provide that reassurance that I identified the concern in the report, and the view of the Government and the agencies, that the considerable increase in resources, while directed at supporting the counter-terror effort, nevertheless enables the agencies to build capability and flexibility. That means that although the amount of resource spent on, for example, counter-espionage is perhaps proportionally less, we can nevertheless be reassured—because counter-espionage work will be able to make use of the capability and resources that have been put in, particularly with respect to the Security Service—that those risks are being covered off.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments, and I have no difficulty in agreeing with everything that he said. Our enemies would be interested in knowing where the shoe is pinching, but, equally so would Parliament, because it might conclude that more funds should be made available or that the way in which the funds are prioritised does not provide the best value for money. Such a debate would, in an ideal world, be of interest to the Government, because history shows that when Governments are taken to task and held to account—politely, I would hope—in such matters, it often leads to improvements, whereas if such matters remain concealed within the Departments concerned, it makes life rather more difficult.
	I am mindful that we are very reliant on my right hon. Friend and the other Members of the Committee, both those who are present today and those who are not, for their good sense in bringing to bear what pressure they can on the Government on these matters. Equally, it is right to point out that the Committee's members do not have, as an ordinary Select Committee has, the force of the House behind them in making those representations. We cannot simply ignore those issues.

Dominic Grieve: Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I certainly was not suggesting that these are major changes, and he is right that some of them are more statements of intent. However, to the extent that a statement of intent is better than nothing, I suppose that there might be a meeting of minds between us that the Government seem to be taking a step in the right direction. I am a great believer that such matters have their own dynamic. Once one starts freeing the logjam and accepting that the way in which a Committee operates is going to change, at least at some time in the future—and we will definitely keep pressure on the Government to honour their commitments in that respect—it is likely to follow of itself that those changes will generate pressure to bring about more change. The direction must be towards openness, and the Government would have to come up with some very good reasons indeed if they were not to ensure that.
	I shall listen very carefully to what the hon. Member for Thurrock has to say, but we take a rather pragmatic view. One difficulty that we share is that we are not privy to all the information on which a decision about whether his idea is a good one will be based. That may seem obvious, but it is the truth. We are sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve but we are not in a position to say to the Government that the problems that are identified with his proposals are not real.
	To an extent, we are guided by what members of the Committee say, although I am always conscious that there is a danger of them going native and ceasing to be the upholders of the interests of the House. When that happens, it is because they are lured magnetically into a world where the fact that rooms and secret information are made available to them gently and subtly affects their judgment. They are grateful for being made privy to matters that are not available to other people. That said, I would not in any wish it to be suggested that members of the Committee do not do a very valuable job—indeed, the very reverse: I have a very high opinion of their work.

Christopher Huhne: I do not believe that I am crossing that line, in relation to the issue of whether to intervene in a legal investigation, because there are wider considerations than those that are of concern to the intelligence services, not least among which is the reputation of British businesses. How many of them will lose business as a result of clients' fears that if they do business with British businesses, it might be taken as a sign that they are in receipt of corrupt payments or bribes? There are wider considerations, and although the Foreign Secretary, whom we welcome to the Chamber, is chortling at that, I assure him that in many parts of the world it is significant for clients to know that business contracts are being signed for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.
	I note that the Committee has reiterated the importance of intercept evidence, while respecting the point that we await the result of the Government's deliberations on the Chilcot review. We hope that a resolution can quickly be found that allows for the successful prosecution of terror suspects by using intercept evidence while protecting the needs of our security services. We know, for example, that that has been done successfully in the United States and Australia, both of which are in close intelligence relationships with our intelligence services. Liberal Democrat Members therefore see no reason why we should not proceed.
	In July 2007, the ISC produced its special report on rendition, which shows the important work that the ISC must be allowed to perform on the operations of the intelligence services. I pay tribute to the Committee for that work.
	Reports such as this seem to show the importance of having an investigator with extensive powers. It is disappointing that the Committee has been without an investigator since 2004, when the then investigator, John Morrison, appeared on "Panorama", after which his contract was—perhaps unsurprisingly—not renewed. It is surely possible for the Committee to find an investigator whose contractual terms ensure that they do not pop up on prime-time television. Although we welcome the commitment in the reform proposals to appoint an investigatory team, I hope that the skills and experience of that team are well used and allow greater scrutiny.
	Overall, we welcome the report and the suggested reforms. We hope that debates will become annual and that the independence of the ISC will be cemented by the acceptance of the amendment. We also congratulate the staff of the intelligence services on their work.

David Miliband: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made this a constructive and useful debate. The ISC is, in a way, a very British institution as regards how it works and tries within the limits of our own practice to get the right degree of rigour in the scrutiny of Government and the agencies without compromising the vital work that they do. Let me put it on record that from the Government's point of view it is in our interest, never mind the country's interest, that that scrutiny is as rigorous as possible given the limits that need to exist.
	I want to associate myself strongly with the remarks of all right hon. and hon. Members. Whether they have supported the Government's proposals or expressed qualms about them, all have praised the dedication, bravery and intelligence of our agencies, and I would like to second that very strongly. These people and the organisations that they work for have, for a long time, placed a critical role in the defence of the country and the defence of the interests of every citizen of this country, and we are lucky to have them.
	Overseas secret intelligence, which I obviously have more to do with than domestic intelligence, has given us a vital edge in tackling some of the most difficult security challenges that we face; the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) spoke about bravery, and he was right to do so. Very briefly, I would like to put it on record that I have known Alex Allan for 11 years now, and a couple of hon. Members referred to his recent illness and passed on their best wishes to him. I am delighted to say that he will be able to recognise the warmth and strength of that feeling when it is passed on to him in hospital. I am sure that we all wish him a speedy and full recovery from his illness.
	I would also like to thank sincerely all members of the Committee that is led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for his efforts. The rigour with which they approach their task is important for the Government and the nation, and we are developing a balance of challenge and support that is appropriate for the difficult issues that we face.
	I would like to pick up on as many as possible of the comments made by hon. Members without trying the patience of the House. In case hon. Members are worried, I am not planning to take us up to 6 o'clock—this will not be a Castro-length peroration, tempting though it is to engage in such a peroration about the reforms. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) suggested that the reforms could not be classified as revolutionary, which is right, but that is partly because the system has strengths, and we want to build on those rather than up-end the system.
	The Intelligence and Security Committee differs from parliamentary Select Committees for a simple reason: in order to carry out its work it needs access to highly classified materials. Unlike Select Committees, its deliberations, or at least most of them—I shall come back to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in a moment—need to take place in a secure environment, behind closed doors. Its reports inevitably contain highly classified information, which is why the Prime Minister is the first to see them in their entirety and why versions laid before the House are redacted—a point that I shall also return to.
	I shall start with the Government's proposal for a new Standing Order that would change the process of appointing hon. Members so that they would go before the House by means of the Committee of Selection, and right hon. and hon. Members would get to vote on them before their names were put to the Prime Minister for agreement. The Prime Minister will retain the final say on membership as he is ultimately responsible for and accountable to the House on matters of national security. It is right to make this reform in the interests of the openness and parliamentary accountability that hon. Members have referred to.

David Miliband: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's attempt to find common ground, but he is effectively saying that we do not need to accept the amendment to continue thinking about whether primary legislation is necessary. On that basis, I look forward to his not moving the amendment and to continuing the constructive discussions.
	Offices have taken up more of the debate than I expected. The ISC needs secure accommodation to carry out its duties. We have no proprietorial commitment to its meeting in the Cabinet Office or elsewhere, but we are examining the matter with an open mind.
	Let me deal with some individual points. Several hon. Members referred to reports in  The Guardian about UK complicity in the torture of UK nationals detained in Pakistan—an extremely serious charge. The Security Service has checked for any relevant information in the light of the media allegations and informed me that there is nothing to suggest that it has supported torture in Pakistan or anywhere else. The Government's position is clear: we unreservedly condemn the use of torture. We take allegations of mistreatment extremely seriously and would follow up all such allegations very carefully. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said, individuals who feel that their human rights have been infringed by the intelligence services can take their case to the investigatory powers tribunal.
	Redaction has also been mentioned. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire said that no redaction has ever been made without the Committee's consent. The Government are committed to ensuring that that always remains the case. It is a positive development and there is no reason for it to be compromised.
	On the SCOPE computer system, phase 1 provides an operational shared service to a range of Departments, including the intelligence agencies. The enhanced SCOPE infrastructure will continue to play a central role in the way in which the Government share sensitive information securely. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said and the ISC noted in its annual report, the programme has already delivered significant benefits to the wider community through phase 1 and has been instrumental in improving policymaking and operational efficiency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) made an interesting venture into electronic cyber-attack—I think that he knows about that than he let on; let us put it that way—but he did not mention the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, which is available to the private sector from the Government and to Government through GCHQ, and which co-ordinates a range of briefings and efforts to ensure that we are protected.
	In respect of the focus on terrorism, which I do not think any hon. Member has questioned, I have seen no evidence to suggest that our efforts to secure our country have been compromised in other areas as a result of that focus, although that is obviously something that we must continue to watch.
	Finally—I hope that I am not getting on the wrong side of the deputy Chief Whip here—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who speaks for the Opposition, asked about rendition. Although I am tempted to wait for another 35 minutes and see whether those in the Box can produce an answer to his question about the UN convention on enforced disappearances, I am afraid that one has not yet arrived. I hope that he will allow me to write to him with details of where in the Foreign Office's pending tray the issue lies. Subject to that, I am happy to admit that I am unable to provide him with an immediate answer.
	The House is agreed that the intelligence agencies play a vital role. We are agreed that we need strong and rigorous independent questioning and scrutiny by the ISC. We are agreed that Parliament should play a greater role—

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this debate and on leading the campaign to save the brewing museum in Burton on Trent. I am delighted to have had the educational experience of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, both of whom are members of the all-party beer group. Indeed, the chairman of that group, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) is with us now, so this is indeed an important debate on a serious issue.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has rightly pointed out, there is centuries of brewing heritage in Burton on Trent, with many important brewery buildings and, until very recently, a brewing museum. As she has said, Burton is synonymous with brewing. Great brewing names, such as Bass, Worthington, Ind Coope and Charrington, all had links to Burton, thus making it the brewing capital of the world in the 19th century. By the close of that century, I understand that some 87 miles of private brewery railway lines criss-crossed the town, with 32 level-crossing gates controlling the movement of freight across public roads.
	Even today, there are still brewery businesses in the town, including Coors and Marston's, and the town's brewing heritage continues to be celebrated in the name of the local arts centre and the nickname of the local football team—the Brewers—to name but two. So it is not surprising that the people of Burton signed a petition in their thousands to save the museum from closure and came on to the streets to protest against the closure, with the support of their local newspaper.
	Clearly, it is disappointing that Coors could not keep the visitor centre and museum running as a going concern, but I would rather focus on the future than on the past. Yes, the museum may be closed for now, but that should not be the end of the story. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), met my hon. Friend and local representatives on 16 June. Both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are keen to see the museum reopen in some form. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council—the MLA—which is the DCMS's strategic body for the sector, is advising a steering group on the options that are available. As was reported in the  Burton Mail, we do believe that saving the museum is possible and that the setting up of a charitable trust and then fundraising is a fight worth fighting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has said that she will write to the major brewers in this country to seek their financial support for a national museum of brewing. This is not simply about rebadging the Coors visitor centre under a new name; it has to be about celebrating and explaining the role that brewing and pubs play in underpinning our communities.
	The new museum must tell the story of brewing in the community of Burton and its importance for the country as a whole. As a nation, we take our beer pretty seriously, and a national brewing museum has the potential to be the public front door for the brewing industry and its impressive history. When the museum reopens, I shall take up the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and visit it.
	However, first the stakeholder steering group needs to assess what needs to happen to make the museum a viable proposition. That includes arriving at a good, solid, sustainable business plan with a broad range of long-term funding partners behind it. Those will need to include not just Coors, the other brewers and the wider brewing fraternity, but the local authorities—Staffordshire county council and East Staffordshire borough council. As local authorities, they should consider the value that they place on the museum and whether they can contribute to its future, as I understand that there has not been a local authority-backed museum in the town since the 1980s. Support could also come from the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, which has the strategic leadership role for the tourism economy in the region. For instance, there could be scope for marketing the museum as a visitor attraction, alongside the national forest, to draw in visitors to the area.
	The new brewing museum should work towards achieving the museum accreditation standard. Accreditation is about a minimum standard of service delivery and public accountability and more than 1,800 museums across the United Kingdom have so far achieved it. Whether a museum has accreditation is a factor in the Heritage Lottery Fund's assessment of funding applications from museums. East Staffordshire is a priority area for the fund. Only accredited museums can receive funds from the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council-Victoria and Albert Museum purchase grant fund.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can also play its part through the Renaissance programme for regional museums, which is managed by the MLA. The Renaissance programme received an index-linked settlement in the comprehensive spending review and the programme includes the Museum Development Fund, which provides advice and support to the museum community in the west midlands. Once the museum is a going concern, it could use Renaissance in the west midlands to build its audiences and develop its strengths. The new brewing museum will also need to earn its own income from entry fees and other commercial activity. The working group is considering whether corporate and private hospitality and conferencing could help cross-subsidise the museum. Other ideas have included setting up an further education school of brewing as a centre of excellence.
	Gaining charitable trust status could also help in winning public grant funding and make the museum more attractive to private and philanthropic giving and local entrepreneurs. However, competition for resources is tough. More than half the museums in this country are independent; they range from small local organisations, mainly operated by volunteers, to larger national organisations such as the Ironbridge Gorge museum or Chatham historic dockyard. The museum will have to operate within the resources that are ultimately available to it, and volunteers will have an important role to play in developing the museum and its visitor programme over time.
	The coming months will be a challenge for the steering group. I am optimistic in my support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and for the wider industry. The enthusiasm of the people of Burton on Trent gives us the opportunity to ensure that the wider community of people in this country, who are passionate about beer and brewing, can have a museum of which they are proud. I hope that we can assist the stakeholder group and that my hon. Friends will keep up the pressure to try to get the museum open again.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Six o'clock.